IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 322 of 2011(M)
1. REHANA.A.B., W/O./V.J.HAREES MUSALIYAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE MANAGER, MUSLIM HIGHER SECONDARY
4. SABEENA.M.T., H.S.A., MUSLIM HIGHER
5. JYOTHI K.NAIR, H.S.A. (MATHS),
6. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :05/01/2011
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C). No.322/2011-M
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 5th day of January, 2011
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is working as an Upper Primary
School Assistant in Muslim Higher Secondary School,
Kangazha which is an aided school. Her initial
appointment was approved from 08/06/2001 as evidenced
by Ext.P1 order. In that school, a leave vacancy of
H.S.A (Maths) arose consequent on the availing of leave
by Smt.Jyothi K.Nair, and the petitioner was promoted
for the period from 05/07/2001 to 06/11/2001. It is
stated that the said appointment was also approved and
salary was paid which resulted in the petitioner
becoming a claimant under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A
K.E.R.
2. In the school, the Manager has made certain
accommodations in favour of respondents 4 and 5 and,
finally, the District Educational Officer passed an
order as per Ext.P9, which according to the petitioner
is not sustainable. It is in these circumstances, the
petitioner has filed a revision petition before the
Director of Public Instructions as per Ext.P10. The
W.P.(C). No.322/2011
-:2:-
main prayer raised by the petitioner therein is to
reject the appointment of the fourth respondent and to
direct the Manager to promote the petitioner as H.S.A
(English).
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that urgent orders are required in the
revision petition and, therefore, the same may be
directed to be disposed of expeditiously and within a
time limit.
4. There will be a direction to the sixth
respondent to take a decision on Ext.P10 revision
petition after hearing the petitioner and respondent
Nos.3 to 5 within three months. The petitioner will
produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy
of the Judgment before the sixth respondent for
compliance. If the petitioner seeks for any interim
order before the sixth respondent, the application will
be disposed of expeditiously after hearing the parties
concerned within three weeks from the date of receipt
of the application for interim order. The writ
petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
ms
\\TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE